Wikipedia talk:Protection policy/Archive 15

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Archive 10 ← Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18

Shouldn't the protection policy page also be protected?

I think that the Protection Policies page should also be protected because there is a potential for vandals to change the description of the different levels of protection offered in the page.Duelistgamer (talk) 14:46, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

  • The main protection policy is already semi-protected. Full protection isn't justified because the policy isn't the property of the admin, but of the community. That is different than user pages, where users are generally given domain over the content of their own pages and subpages, within reason and policy. If the page needed full protection for some reason (edit warring, etc.) then it would be applied for the period of time necessary to prevent disruption, but not longer. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 15:01, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Vandals can change the content of asll our core policies too. In fact, I believe that Wikipedia:Vandalism would be more of a vandalism target, and it's only semi. Semi protection will prevent most of the vandalism. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:46, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

World Heritage Sites

Please update the number of World Heritage Sites to 48. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SailingSummer (talk • contribs) 12:02, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

This is not the place to make edit requests. Go to the talk page of the page you want edited and make a request there. If (and only if) the talk page itself has been protected should you proceed to make a request at
WP:RFPP. smtchahaltalk
06:03, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

RFC: Should Rule about Edits During Full Page-Protection Be Clarified?

Should the policy about edits by admins during full page protection be clarified as to what as "uncontroversial" edits? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:38, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Support Bwilkins' interpretation. We have two mutually exclusive interpretations of this policy. Bwilkins interprets it to mean that admins should only edit through protection to "remove policy violating text/images". Nuclear Warfare interprets it to mean that admins may continue to edit through protection to "shape the article's content". I believe that Bwilkins' view reflects the long accepted interpretation of this policy. I hope people commenting here say which of these interpretations they would like to see as policy. Once we have consensus about that we can work on the wording. 80.174.78.102 (talk) 22:42, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Bwilkins' interpretation. Policy-violating text/images includes BLP, copy-right violations, libel, a variety of other issues, but full page protection should not mean that admins can shape the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:10, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Bwilkins' interpretation Admins are supposed to be editors with additional tools to support the community, not their own viewpoints and the responsibility to use them wisely, not a "higher caste" of editors. NE Ent 02:31, 10 May 2013 (UTC) It should be painful for an article to be full protected, so that it gets unprotected as soon as possible. Allowing uncontroversial edits reduces the urgency to return part of Wikipedia to what should be it's normal state. NE Ent 00:48, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Probably yes but certainly do not support Bwilkins' opinion (I don't think it's an "interpretation"; I'm not seeing anything in the policy that could possibly be interpreted as meaning that). Uncontroversial means not likely to arouse controversy - obvious fixes of various kinds, which may or may not involve removal, and may or may not be connected with "policy violations". The clarification should be along the lines that if someone makes a good-faith objection to a change which an administrator considered uncontroversial, then it's not in fact uncontroversial and should be reverted pending consensus. Also, whether or not something is "policy-violating" can be extremely controversial, so that should not be used as a reason for an admin to force through changes. Victor Yus (talk) 08:24, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Administrators are supposed to have enough clue to judge what is controversial. For instance, correcting the gross grammar error in this proposal would be uncontroversial. Sorry, I am not going to endorse or reject someone else's opinion which I only know about second hand from what is said above. SpinningSpark 17:34, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Bwilkin's interpretation - per the reasons I stated above in the discussion. One of which is: whether an edit is controversial is subjective, introducing new information can potentially lead to longer full-protection periods and increase tension between editors and admins on a certain page. Although as I said, it's rare for a page to get fully protected let alone disputed over by admins and editors during the protection period, it's better to be prepared and implement relevant policies than waste everyone's time at ANI in the inevitable future. YuMaNuMa Contrib 08:40, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
I don't get it - whether something is policy-violating is often very subjective; but whether it is controversial really is not (if no-one objects to the substance of the change, then it's not controversial). The time-wasting at ANI etc. seems to be the fault of those who care more about personal status and feelings of inferiority than about the real thing we should be focused on, which is making Wikipedia articles better. Victor Yus (talk) 08:46, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
In response to your first point; not really, in reality if you break the law, you break the law, there's no if or buts (in most cases anyways), what people usually debate over is whether there is enough evidence to support the prosecutor or defendant's claims and whether a sentence is too harsh or lenient. The same applies on Wikipedia, except the policies here are much more simple and straight forward; all admins need to determine is whether the text or image violates copyright laws, does the source support a certain claim and whether information in an article should be removed as a result of legal proceedings. For edit wars over content, admins should simply restore the most stable version and let users discuss the content; in most cases the most stable version is the version that has been live for the longest. I can't fathom any other reason why an admin would want to fully protect an article (not page). As for your ANI point...if users edit an article to the point where it gets fully protected, they are most likely going to take any arisen issue related to conduct to ANI asap due to already brewing tension between editors. YuMaNuMa Contrib 09:56, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia policies are simple and straightforward?! Have you read them? In any case, I would far rather trust an admin to fix a typo or grammatical error than to judge whether (for example) some piece of text is supported by a sufficiently reliable source. And an edit war over some part of an article shouldn't hold up improvement of other parts of the article, which might be totally unrelated to the dispute. Victor Yus (talk) 10:15, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Well, in my opinion the guidelines are straight forward as long as you're aware of them, however applying them is a different story I guess, though usually editors and admins struggle to apply them due to the complexity of the content in question and our lack of expertise in field. It's difficult to determine which section should be off-limits as they are most likely going to be interrelated as you would expect from an article on one topic. Typos and grammar are not exactly my top concerns, I'm fair more concerned about admins abusing their powers and inadvertently causing disruption by editing pages and later claiming that they did not violate any rule. YuMaNuMa Contrib 10:27, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Leave the wording in the policy as is. It is easy to define uncontroversial in the circumstances where a page is protected, it is any edit where there is no objection to the edit on the talk page to that edit, I see no problem with following the usual
    WP:BRD cycle and so I see no need to change the policy. BTW I would expect as a sign of good faith that an admin would self-revert if it is brought to his or her attention that there was an objection to an edit (s)he made to a fully protected page. See my posting to this page on 3 May 2013 where I gave a more detailed explanation of how I reached this opinion.-- PBS (talk
    ) 10:05, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
To argue that admins should apply BRD to protected pages is to argue that they should treat the page exactly as though it were not protected, while everyone else is locked out. If that is written into this policy, it will be the only policy to assert that admins may use the tools to gain an advantage when editing content. A few years ago that would have been unthinkable. It's sad to see what little remains of the early ideals of this place.80.174.78.102 (talk) 10:13, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
See my comment (23:42, 13 May 2013 -- it pre-dates you posting here and has more detailed reply), I think that you are using rhetoric to make a point about something other than non-controversial changes. In this posting you use the phrase "to gain an advantage" which implies controversial changes, and this policy already excludes such changes. -- PBS (talk) 12:02, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
I have said repeatedly that I would be okay with wording that allows admins to make small fixes. See this post, for example. What we have at the moment is people interpreting the policy to mean everything from admins may make no substantive edits, to admins may make any edit they like. Your position is actually the most extreme. You want admins to apply BRD to protected pages, i.e. to treat them exactly as though they were not protected. Read the page you're linking to:"When in doubt, edit!". This policy needs to be clear about which edits are acceptable. Using the word "uncontroversial" makes the policy as clear as mud, as the numerous interpretations of "uncontroversial" on this page testify. Of course we can't detail every possible scenario, but we can be clear about what we mean. If we really want admins to continue writing the article while it is protected, we should say so. If we want them to do nothing more than make minor corrections and to remove policy violations, we should say so. All this stuff about admins using their good judgement is nonsense. We will have as many different interpretations of "uncontroversial" as there admins. And every one of them will be correct. No wonder admins don't want the wording clarified. 80.174.78.102 (talk) 13:47, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment all those who were involved in the section #Remove "uncontroversial" from the policy. should be informed of this RfC, or their opinions should be considered when deciding if there is or is not a consensus for a change of wording.-- PBS (talk) 10:05, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Leave wording as is - I agree with PBS's comments above re BRD and good-faith self-reverting. Bwilkins' comment linked above may be too restrictive. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:20, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
  • The idea of all admins reverting their edits when others object to them is nice and all but lets face reality; if an admin is willing to make an edit that would be deemed controversial on an already fully-protected page, I regretfully doubt that they are going to revert it themselves. As not all fully protected pages are regularly patrolled by admins, it may then be necessary for editors on that page to seek the attention of other admins on forums such as ANI, increasing bureaucracy and placing more pressure on already overloaded forums. YuMaNuMa Contrib 06:24, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Your comment shows a lack of good faith. However all admins are human and human make mistakes, so it may be that an edit that an admin makes may be seen by others (acting in good faith) to be controversial. If an admin makes a change to a protected page, they will be aware that they have, so it would not be unreasonable for other editors to expect them to see their comments on the talk page. An additional comment on the user talk page of the admin would be seen. If after a reasonable time has passed the editing admin had not reverted and no other admin who watches the page has revert it. Then and only then is a post to ANI justified. -- PBS (talk) 11:43, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
  • It's one thing to make a mistake but it's another to put yourself in a situation where you're likely to make a mistake. Now, I'm not talking about grammar fixes, format fixes or such, I'm talking about the addition of new content or the alteration of existing content. I really don't see why admins would risk provoking editors by doing anything as such, an admin with respect for consensus and the community would simply wait a few days to add whatever they wish with no limitations; I have a hard time seeing the one without, self-reverting without being pointed to the controversy(this thread) that he may cause. I know most admins are genuine decent editors who will do the right thing and have respect for the community but one must note that where there's a majority, a minority exists. YuMaNuMa Contrib 14:40, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes, I suppose it is necessary. The text is already pretty clear: changes may be made to a fully protected page if and only:
A change is proposed on the talk page, and there is consensus to make the change.
A change is proposed on the talk page, and there is no objection after a reasonable time -- that is, the change is uncontroversial.
There really isn't any other way to interpret "Changes to a fully protected page should be proposed on the corresponding talk page, and carried out by an administrator if they are uncontroversial or if there is consensus for them." which is the operative prescription. There is no provision for making any edit whatsoever, by any person, for any reason, at any time, that has not first been proposed on the talk page. This is quite clear. Now, if some persons are determined to ignore that (which I gather is what is going on), this is a political issue (either they can get away with it or they can't) not a rules issue, and changing the rule probably won't help that much. However I suppose it might help to make it that much harder for people to do that, and at the same time we can add an exception for dire emergencies (such a the presence of libel). So something like this might be useful: "Changes to a fully protected page should be proposed on the corresponding talk page, and carried out by an administrator if there is consensus for them or if after five days there are no objections, except that in a dire emergencies such as the presence of libel any administrator can (indeed must) edit the page immediately." Herostratus (talk) 02:31, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Herostratus are you aware of the great
WP:AT (eg RfC (October 2012)). The debate was over the different interpretations of the word "should". There was no agreement on whether "should" means "ought" or "must" (it seems that individuals, and perhaps different dialects of English, interpret the word differently). What was agreed in that specific case was not to substitute "must" for "should". -- PBS (talk
) 08:45, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
"Should" means "should", which in this context means "is obliged to; has a duty to". If they wanted to write either "must" or "ought" they could have; they didn't. "Must" indicates an absolute compulsion, which is overly inflexible; there may and can be cases (libel for instance) that are exceptions. ("Lacking character sufficient to see one's duty clearly" is not a valid exception.) So "must" would not have been a good word to use here, and they didn't. "Ought" means (among other things) "is advised to". So "ought" would not have been a good word to use here, and they didn't. It's pretty obvious that in this instance "should" means at least "God damn well ought, unless you've got a pretty compelling reason that you can (and do) explain in a way such that most any reasonable and disinterested person will accept it". It sure as heck doesn't mean "might want to, if you're in the mood, and it's not too much trouble". Any reading of "should" to mean that is idiosyncratic and not supported by any legitimate dictionary. Herostratus (talk) 03:56, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
"they" in this case means "us [editors]". You are using one set of definitions (which you "should" have cited). There are many more: These are the definitions from the OED:
  • Must:
    • 1 "A use of ‘must’ (must v.1) to express a command, obligation, or necessity; (hence) an obligation, a duty; a compulsion."
    • 2 "colloq. (orig. U.S.). Something highly recommended or not to be missed; an absolute essential for a particular purpose or end."
    • 3 "colloq. (orig. U.S.). That is compelling in some respect; essential, mandatory."
  • Ought: "That which should be done, the obligatory; a statement using ‘ought’, expressing a moral imperative. Also concr.: something necessary."
  • Should: has no independent entry as a verb in the OED instead it is given as the past tense of "shall", which has lots of different nuances. Shall I list all of them?
-- PBS (talk) 11:10, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Bwilkins' interpretation Wikipedia is built on consensus. That means editors being able to edit equally, and discuss things on talk pages. That means admins should not be editing pages that are fully protected unless there is a need to edit that page. It is not for tidying up an article, correcting spelling/grammar errors, changing headings etc. If admins continue to edit pages under full protection without proper justification then the next time Wikipedia_talk:Protected_Page_Editor comes up it will pass, which will create two levels of editors. Pages will be protected to stop others editing. Full page protection is here for a reason, not for admins to treat it as a special perk, such as when the Boston bombings article was fully protected. If this rule is not clarified then admins abusing it need to be de-sysoped.Martin451 (talk) 02:36, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
I don't think the people who claim that they support "Bwilkins interpretation" really realize what it says. By allowing admins to remove "policy-violating" material (without requiring that such removal be uncontroversial), we would be giving them much more power, not less. If your aim is to protect people's feelings by stopping admins from looking superior to others (which seems rather petty and silly to me, but still) then you should be insisting that their changes go through the same procedure as those of other editors (i.e. first be proposed on the talk page, etc.), not giving them any new blanket powers to make certain types of changes. Victor Yus (talk) 05:19, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Crazy. Absolutely crazy. Since the very beginning it has been a bright line that admins do not use the tools to gain an advantage when editing content. Now we have an arb in the vanguard of those arguing against that fundamental principle. And we have admins arguing that the ability to use the tools edit through protection should be used as a carrot to entice people to apply for adminship. 80.174.78.102 (talk) 10:17, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
It's NOT an "advantage" to the admins! Wikipedia is not a battleground or competition - most of the things that people do here are things that all of us would wish to see done. When admins make uncontroversial changes, it's to the advantage of all of us, and to the advantage of Wikipedia's users. Nothing except a warm glow of satisfaction accrues to the person who actually made the changes - and you can experience that glow yourself, by the simple token of proposing uncontroversial changes on the talk page and waiting for an admin to come along and make them. Victor Yus (talk) 11:53, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Firstly who is the Arb you refer to? Secondly what advantage does it give the admin if they have to revert if anyone says their edit was contentious? I've fixed thousands of typos on this site, very very rarely does anyone object to my typo fixes. But it would be a real annoyance if I had to leave a calvary troop charging through some contentious battle because the page was fully protected and even something as uncontentious as changing calvary troop to cavalry troop had first to be discussed on the talkpage. RFA is a process by which we give extra tools to trusted editors, and one of the things we should be able to trust admins to do is to know whether an edit to a fully protected page is contentious or not. It seems that this whole proposal is sparked by one incident, and single incidents should be resolved by talking to the people who've allegedly made a contentious change and reminding them of the policy - unless someone can come up with an article other than Boston where there is alleged to be a problem then why are we even debating changing the policy? ϢereSpielChequers 19:55, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Just as likely to be yet another practice that causes editors to decide WP is for the elitist insiders and just leave. NE Ent 00:48, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Leaving the wording as is. Leave admins to make up their own minds, they are supposed to be able to make up their own minds. Plus what is controversial would be different depending on the reason for protection (sockpuppetry compared with edit warring - and what the edit warring was over). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:34, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Leave as is. I've explained myself at length above. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 09:00, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Clarification is clearly needed; what that clarification shouldbe is harder. I came to this conversation because of the editing at the boston bombing article. The editing through protection by admins I respect was problematic for me. Had they been removing BLP violations, libellous or offensive material I@d have had no problem. But reorganising it, correcting spelling mistakes and grammar errors (which is often fraught anyway) when other editors couldn't was very probelmatic for me. I don't think admins should be editing through full protection unless there's consensus for it. There's consensus for removal of BLP and libel and where something's been agreed on the talk page, there's not consensus for correcting grammar, or whether para a should be before or after para b. GedUK  11:31, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
There's not consensus for correcting grammar? So there are significant numbers of Wikipedia editors who think that bad grammar might be preferable to good grammar in articles?! (There might not be consensus that a particular grammatical change is desirable, but that also applies to a particular removal of alleged libel or anything else; and in either case, any disagreement will quickly become apparent.) Victor Yus (talk) 11:46, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
If indeed there is consensus that grammatical errors and other unambiguous minor problems (e.g., broken links or unclosed tags) should go uncorrected until protection is lifted or consensus to fix them becomes clear, then obviously I am contributing to the wrong project. Leaving such easily fixed problems in an article makes us look slipshod or illiterate or both, and it is not in the interest of our readers (who by and large couldn't care less if an article is protected, or why). Consider a hypothetical instance: "Jones denied there alegation in court; claiming he never sawthe money<ref name="reuters and was aquitted on all counts." There are seven errors in the preceding sentence. Is it really desirable, let alone necessary, that they be painstakingly enumerated on the talk page? Should a certain interval then pass, just in case someone wants to debate whether they're really errors or how to fix them? Should there be an RfC, a 30-day wait, and a request for close at AN? That may sound profoundly silly (it does to me, anyway), but that seems to be the direction in which we're being asked to move. Rivertorch (talk) 16:06, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment My own opinion is that there should be consensus for correcting grammar or spelling (consistent with the variety of English in which the article is written). There is not likely to be consensus for moving paragraphs. The example given by Rivertorch should be corrected. It is wrong in both American English and any variety of Commonwealth English. The keyword is "unambiguous minor problems". If an article has unambiguous major problems, it is unlikely that there will be consensus on how to fix them. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:40, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment to date this change has been debated around article pages that are protected because of content disputes. However there are different types of pages in particular templates that are fully protected indefinatly, and it seems to me that those proposing a change have not considered that (as no one proposing the change has mentioned the different types of pages). -- PBS (talk) 11:43, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment Perhaps an additional phrase, or sentence, explicitly suggesting that administrators should self revert if a change that they made proved to be controversial might be added to the section as alternative compromise to the proposed change, that might gain wider support. -- PBS (talk) 11:43, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. Victor Yus (talk) 11:46, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Notice - there's another RfC under way, at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2013, which looks to be leading to the implementation of PC2, which would allow not only admins, but also reviewers, to edit through (a form of) full protection. I've suggested there that the issue being discussed here really needs to be resolved in some way before this happens, otherwise a whole new set of disputes are going to arise. Victor Yus (talk) 10:01, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Perhaps we should set up a dedicated RfC page and call for a consensus on whether the wording should be changed. From the number of people that participated here, it's clearly of interest to many editors and readers. YuMaNuMa Contrib 10:31, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
  • ALERT ALERT ALERT - Yet another example of an Adnin continuing to edit through a Full Protection. Article Doctor Who was fully protected over edit warring, but a few hours after the protection went into place, an admin came along and made an edit. Not only was this not a minor or even uncontroversial edit, but it was basically a continuation of the edit war. How much longer do we need to let this BS go on before we write a policy to address this?--JOJ Hutton 19:19, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
    • That edit was NOT part of the content dispute the article was protected for. It did however remove unsourced information, so the edit was fair game. — Edokter (talk) — 10:37, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
      • No edit, especially controversial edits, are fair game. That is a clear distortion of the policy.--JOJ Hutton 11:19, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
        • Removing unsourced information is never controversial. And again, that edit was unrelated to the content dispute. This is not the proper venue to discuss individual edits. — Edokter (talk) — 11:26, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
          • Removing unsourced information can be massively controversial. There can be great controversy over whether or not something is unsourced - and even if it is (at the moment), that doesn't mean that removing it straight away is the right thing to do. (Particularly since protection means that most editors are not able to add either citations, or citation neededs.) Victor Yus (talk) 17:07, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
            • If the information is uncited, is is unsourced. There can be no controversy over that. If an editor has a source, all that is needed is to post it on the talk page. — Edokter (talk) — 18:08, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
                • So you think that any admin is in order if he just turns up at any protected page and removes any or all statements that don't have citations next to them?? Utterly absurd - most articles contain many such statements, and they're normally there because no-one seriously doubts that a source could be found if required. This kind of muddled thinking is the reason I don't "support Bwilkins interpretation", as many people have thoughtlessly written above - if we give admins explicit license to "remove policy-violating text", then they will take it on themselves to remove anything they personally disagree with, for one reason or another (it will either be uncited, or if it's cited, it will be "undue" or whatever). As we see, a few careless or dishonest admins do this already, but write it into the policy, and they will all start doing it, and we will indeed have created a superior caste of editors - the very thing that most of the people saying they "support Bwilkins" seem to want to avoid. Victor Yus (talk) 06:02, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
              • WP:FULL states fairly clearly Administrators can make changes to the protected article reflecting consensus. Lacking such consensus, as documented by a talk page discussion, the edit should not have been made. NE Ent
                19:49, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
                • The content dispute was about how to include John Hurt in the page, and that is why the page was protected. The admins concerned made edits that were about John Hurt, and so were about the content dispute. The edit should not have been done without prior discussion, and when the first admin undid his edit, a second one should never have changed it back. Undoing the first admin's revert was a controversial edit in itself, and it was sufficiently unimportant that it could have waited until it had been discussed.Martin451 (talk) 22:04, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose proposed changes. Most admins aren't idiots or woefully uninformed, and someone who's neither will be able to judge whether something is controversial or not. As was said above, if you get a complaint from someone because of your edit, you should self-revert, but we shouldn't use disagreements over "uncontroversial" to attempt to prevent admins from fixing spelling or incorrect coding. I'll guess that a decent number of admin edits through protection are through a much more profound misremembering of WP:PP; for example, when I was a new admin, I made a substantial edit to a protected article because I didn't remember that there was anything against it. Good-faith admins who misremember or have never read that part of WP:PP are going to continue making those substantial edits because they don't know better, and no policy change will prevent them from doing it or prevent you from reminding them that they shouldn't and asking for a self-reversion. Nyttend (talk) 03:49, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
I think the problem is that there isn't really such a thing as "that part of WP:PP". There are a few vague statements at a couple of points in the policy - the matter isn't properly addressed at all. Hence everyone just interprets things their own way, and since admins have the power, they end up effectively doing what they want. No matter whether they're misremembering, or just don't give a **** what anyone else may think. Victor Yus (talk) 17:13, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
But don't you see - "violations of our core policies" is such a slippery and inherently controversial concept that by allowing that as an excuse, you effectively are giving admins license to "shape the article". Victor Yus (talk) 06:46, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
I don't think so. If some user sees that the article says "A", but the source used for that statement says "not A", that fact is can be easily checked, simply by a comparison of the article's text with an extended quote from this source.
If someone sees the article contains a statement "A" (supported by the source X), but another reliable and mainstream source exists (Y) that says that the source X is wrong, that also can be easily checked and fixed (simply by removal of the disputed statement X).
Of course, I am not talking about less obvious cases, when sources allow different interpretation.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:46, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
I might agree in your first scenario, but in the second one it sounds far from obvious what ought to be done (probably both views ought to be mentioned). However, the whole matter of interpretation of sources and deciding how reliable they are can be extremely vexed, and will often be at the root of the conflict that got the page protected. Allowing admins to rule unilaterally on such matters (even if they think the answer "obvious") would be giving them the kind of power that most people in this thread seem to feel they should not have. Victor Yus (talk) 07:29, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Own userspace pages protection policy

Per a request at
Nathan Johnson (talk
) 17:45, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Expanding per a request made at
WP:Administrators noticeboard#Closure review
. Overall, the general feeling here seems to be that any form of protection should not be applied to discussion pages in a users userspace, except in exceptional circumstances. However, getting back to the main question, the consensus seems to read that user talk pages can be protected upon request, however only if this proves a benefit to the project - eg. repeated vandalism. Pages should not be pre-emptively or automatically protected. For example, if a vandal starts targeting a user page, then protection is valid, although the consensus seems to be that indefinite protection should probably be the norm to reduce the burden of protection/unprotection.
Overall, consensus seems to be the protection policy as a whole covers this situation - pre-emptive or automatic protection goes against our general principles, but if a point to protection is highlighted, then it can be used for any length needed. Mdann52 (talk) 12:16, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Exactly under what circumstances should userspace pages get protected? And should admins be allowed to fully-protect their own user pages just because they don't want other users to edit them? smtchahaltalk 01:39, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

The protection policy regarding protection of userspace pages has been

WP:AN
and when I felt even that wasn't working, I decided to post this RfC.

Also, we need to clear up when admins can protect their own user pages, and upto which level. User:Edgar181, an admin, full-protected his user page right after he created it. But of course, I can't say he did it for no good reason, because that user page has been deleted by himself several times, and there may have been a history of vandalism by auto-confirmed users, but being a non-admin, I cannot tell. smtchahaltalk 01:41, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

  • My opinion — I'd like to see the policy explicitly permit the protection of any userspage page at whatever level desired for whatever duration desired (as long as there's an unprotected user talk page, of course), since it's bad form to edit someone else's userspace if they don't want it. The whole point of the bit about "pages aren't protected preëmptively" is that we want articles to be available for everyone; the editing of userpages really isn't related to the philosophical basis upon which we permit editing of all problem-free articles. Of course admins should have the discretion to say "No, I don't think you're making this request in good faith", and problematic things in userspace should be removed by anyone with the rights to edit those pages (including an unprotection if necessary), but protection of userspace by request of the user is a basic courtesy with no downsides in almost all cases. That's why some of us already extend that courtesy in almost all cases, and that's why the policy should be changed to permit it explicitly in the face of questions about what the current wording means. Nyttend (talk) 01:55, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Being an admin, on what basis would you check whether a request for protection was made in good faith or not? Also, I don't think user pages should be allowed to be protected liberally like that, because consider the case when an admin, who displays a few userboxes on their user page, protects his user page fully. Now various bots and users, who migrate the transclusions of userboxes as they get moved, will not be able to do it and the users (not the bots, of course) will need to request the admin to do it himself who probably won't want to be bothered. This was just one of the reasons why I don't think user pages should be fully-protected without a "good reason", but of course, we need to decide what we mean by that phrase here. smtchahaltalk 02:28, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
      • "I know it when I see it". Can't give you a hard-and-fast rule, but I'm envisioning a situation in which the requesting user is already in conflict that's related to the userpage, or when I look at the userpage and notice that it has questionable content. Basically, I'm willing to protect any time that I don't see evidence of problems; I see that as being compatible with the current wording and would like to see the current wording clarified in that way. Full protection is an issue, I admit — I'd ask users to explain why full protection was necessary, since they couldn't edit anything like that; my primary concern is the administrative time occupied by a user who wants to edit a fully-protected page, since a single unmoved userbox isn't a big problem. I'd pretty much automatically suggest the JS trick to someone requesting indefinite full protection; this is where you put your userbox code into a .js page (since only admins can edit other people's JS pages) and make your userpage nothing but a transclusion of the JS page. Nyttend (talk) 03:30, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Strongly Support on-demand SPP for userpages - I would not oppose automatic SPP for all userpages. The only valid reason for an editor to modify another editor's userpage is to remove generally prohibited material (spam, attacks, etc.), and I do not think restricting such clean-up tasks to autoconfirmed and confirmed editors will lead to problems. This would have the added benefit of preventing users from only ever editing their userpage and using it for purposes other than improving the encyclopedia. For this reason, I am strongly in favor of honoring requests to SPP a user's userpage for any reason. Note that my comments applies only to SPP, not FPP, and only to user pages, not user talk pages. :) ·
    ✉
     02:34, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
    • I completely agree with you. I think it safe to assume that since non-auto-confirmed users do not perform maintenance tasks on user pages (like userbox migration, as I already mentioned; or perhaps more importantly, removing prohibited content as you mentioned), they cannot prove to be of much help to them in any other ways, either. Besides, the whole concept of Wikipedia's motto "The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" only implies that the encyclopedic part (or rather most of it) can be edited by anyone, including anon. users, and user pages are clearly not a part of it. So if a user requests the semi-protection of their user pages, I fail to see why their request should be denied. Of course I'm also not talking about user talk pages; anyone should be able to communicate with with the user, including anon. users (unless a consensus decides that talk page should get protected; an excessively vandalised talk page archive is an example). Why user pages should not be protected fully without a "good reason" (I know I'm using this phrase way too much) I think I have already remarked in my reply to Nyttend. smtchahaltalk 02:51, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
    • I disagree. There are plenty of reasons to edit another users userpage that isn't reverting vandalism. You might be fixing a template, enacting a UCFD, or whatever. See also Wikipedia:User_pages#Editing_of_other_editors.27_user_and_user_talk_pages. Legoktm (talk) 05:22, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
      • Do you reasonably believe that a non-negligible part of these template fixes, UCFD enactments, or whatever, is performed by non-(auto)confirmed editors? And that restricting the edits only to (auto)confirmed editors would result in problems? :) ·
        ✉
         05:40, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per meta:Founding principles, taken as a whole, there should be as few differences between unregistered/autoconfirmed/admin as possible. I have no right to edit user's pages under most circumstances, nor do IPs or admins. There should not be technical differences between us. Whenever I go to a fully protected the View source in place of the usual welcoming edit this page immediately pops as a "you're untrustworthy!" message, even if I have no intention of editing the page. NE Ent 03:21, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Probably you have not noticed, but there are (apparently) many more "differences" between admins and non-admins than between any other two user groups. Besides, the only meta principle that seems relevant here is the second one: "The ability of almost anyone to edit (most) articles without registration."
      good faith, could disrupt thousands of Wikipedia articles, which is why a very few users called "administrators" are trusted with it), a user should have the full right to get their userspace pages protected if they feel that IP users will not help them edit their user pages (and as I mentioned, unregistered users, not performing maintenance or anything, cannot be helpful in improving user pages of others; and why would they be interested in messing with other users' business, anyway? They will be told to create an account if they want a user page for themselves, if their edit to the user pages is reverted. And in case an unregistered user finds something offensive, like using images from the bad-image list that he/she doesn't want to see on the user page (that other users have failed to notice), the anon. can request the user to remove it or ask for help from some other user; think about it, it's not that hard). And anyway, how big deal is becoming an auto-confirmed user? All it takes is 10 edits and 4 days, and because the requirements for becoming an autoconfirmed user are not at all high, some articles occasionally encounter vandalism by autoconfirmed users, too. So it's not really a "you're untrustworthy!" message on a semi-protected page; it only says "create an account, make 10 edits, wait for just 4 days and you will become special enough to edit this" in my opinion. And I'm not even saving user pages should be semi-protected by default. If a user does not want their user pages protected, fine. But at least users should have this right; it's absolutely reasonable and not very clearly against any of the Founding principles. smtchahaltalk
      04:24, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong liberal support, including full protection for admins. Nyttend and Salvidrin stole my reasons. In addition, if admins can be trusted enough to be admins, they can be trusted enough not to post policy-violating content onto their userspace. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 03:27, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I support semi-protection of any page in user and user talk space on request, except the user talk page, subject to the current provisions, ie there is vandalism and a talk page for 'IP and unconfirmed users'. This allows any page to be semi-protected, including talk page archives. However I think it's important to ensure that admins still have the discretion to decline requests if they believe the request in made in bad faith, as long as they have a reason to support their theory (that is: no, due to xyz I don't believe you're asking in good faith or you have a history of userspace misuse). I would also support full protection on request for unused talk archives (that is, they don't need to be edited by bots or the user to do the archiving), subject to the admin discretion I mentioned above. On the question of admins fully protecting their userspace pages, I don't have an issue with this, since a similar option is still available to non-admins (by transcluding a .js or .css page onto the userpage), however I strongly believe that it would be better to semi it so that maintenance (as User:Smtchahal indicates above can still be done), however I don't believe that full protection should be prohibited by policy (but I would support adding a suggestion as I have done).
Another question we should address is whether admins should be able to protect pages in their own userspace, and I think this depends on what the policy is. At the moment I don't believe they should be, because it requires an objective opinion in an area in which the admin has a conflict of interest (however I think it's fair to AGF on the part of the admin). If the policy is changed to reflect the above then this is no longer an issue and so there is no issue with admins protecting pages in their own userspace. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:31, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong support Just about all the SPI clerks and admins dealing with trolls like Grawp need to be able to defend their userspace against these determined trolls, since blocking is rarely effective with them. --Rschen7754 03:43, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I honestly think it should be a case by case thing. For certain users who have been targeted by LTAs in the past, it makes sense to semi the entire userspace even if not all individual pages were hit. On the flip side, you don't own your userspace, and unless there is a good reason to prevent new users/IPs from editing it I would decline a protection request. Legoktm (talk) 05:18, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Of course, no one
      owns anything they post to Wikipedia (with very few exceptions). But that only means that what I put on my user page can be used by anyone else without permission (like I admittedly copied Mkdw's user page header) and I cannot do anything about it, not that one is also allowed to mess around with my stuff. One may alter it and post it somewhere else, but shouldn't mess with my user page itself. While you're reasonable in saying you would look for IP vandalism before semi-protecting a user page, I fail to see how a non-autoconfirmed user could prove to be helpful by editing someone else's user page. smtchahaltalk
      05:44, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support protection on demand for user pages. It's relatively rare for someone to have good cause to edit another's user page, and more rare for a non-autoconfirmed user to correctly identify such a case. Arbitrary protection has less potential for abuse than arbitrary deletion and we allow CSD-U1 in own user space. Kilopi (talk) 08:23, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
  • A weak oppose is what I am tending to here, because the protection of a userpage should be a reaction to something, not to prevent something which has not happened yet (as in articles, actually). I fear a little bit if we preemptively protect userpages, after some time there will be a push in the direction of preemptively protecting articles too, as we have now such a good precedent for doing it ("It's working fine with userpages, there is no harm..."). This, at least imho, is what Wikipedia is about: the encyclopedia that everyone can edit, and shutting off more and more pages (yes, even userpages) is going against this spirit, so it leaves a bit of a dull feeling inside me, let me call it a hunch that this going the wrong way. Lectonar (talk) 09:17, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Firstly, I'm also in support of protecting as less articles as possible, but I'm only worried about mainspace articles (not counting any talk pages). I don't think this proposal should by any means support pre-emptively protecting mainspace articles as well, because I'm sure that even if such a proposal is made, the majority of users will oppose it for obvious reasons. And for "the encyclopedia that everyone can edit" part: think about it from a new user's point of view, who is likely to encounter the main page before anything else. The user will likely be interested in editing the mainspace articles alone (inspired by the today's featured article which, they might be glad to know, can (likely) be edited by them). Speaking of that, I don't know why or how protecting user pages (even upto any level) should go against the you-can-edit-this-encyclopedia spirit. smtchahaltalk 03:43, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
      • Well, userpages are part of the wiki, aren't they? And for me, as a bit of a gnomish type, I correct typos and the like even on userpages. Lectonar (talk) 06:54, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
        • Yes, user pages are a part of the wiki, not the encyclopedia. The cascade-protected templates are also a part of the wiki; in fact, in a way a part of the encyclopedia as well, because some of those templates are displayed in mainspace articles (while user pages are never). Well, that's nice of you if you do it, but you are an auto-confirmed user, aren't you (you're even an administrator, which means you can edit fully protected user pages, too; though I'm not in favour of getting user pages fully-protected on demand as well)? Do you really think a non-negligible (I'm copying words, I know) number of non-(auto)confirmed users also correct typos and stuff on user pages, and that blocking their access from doing so will affect Wikipedia as an encyclopedia? I'm still where I was; semi-protecting user pages (on demand) does not affect the "you-can-edit-this-encyclopedia" spirit because user pages are never a part of the encyclopedia (only of the Wikipedia community, maybe) unless on rare occasions, when the user creates an article that they plan to submit to the mainspace later on in their userspace (in which case an administrator can simply decline the request). smtchahaltalk 05:47, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
          • Yes, I think on the whole it makes a difference, because it changes the atmospheric conditions for editing as a whole; ideally, we wouldn't even need userpages, so the whole thing would be moot anyway. Let me also add that I find you responding to almost every comment made by an opposer somewhat unnecessary, as I am sure all people contributing here have read and even understood the puprose of this endeavour. If policy will be changed, I will abide by the new policy; this does not mean I have to like it. Lectonar (talk) 16:37, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support on-demand SPP for userpages. Per Salvidrim. If someone plans on working on
    new pages patrol or other areas where it is expected that their userpage will get vandalized, then they should be able to preemptively protect themselves (userpage and talkpage) from personal attacks. Mohamed CJ (talk)
    11:10, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
I did recent changes patrol until I figured out I'd be be as fast as the bots and/or my fellow pratrollers, and did NPP until some admin ranted on my user talk page about wasting their time with an improper CSD ... never had any vandalism. NE Ent 20:54, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Personally I'd prefer we change counterproductive policies before they destroy the wiki. NE Ent 11:24, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
  • And is there a way of knowing if a policy is counterproductive, and that it will destroy the wiki? Besides, in what ways do you think could the wiki get "destroyed" by allowing all administrators to (at least semi-)protect user pages on demand, when (I keep stressing on this fact, I know) a considerable number of administrators do this already? smtchahaltalk 13:04, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
  • The founders and owners of this website have made the decision to allow anonymous editing; therefore the logical extension is that all categories of editors IP / autoconfirmed / admin should be treated the same as much as possible. Semi-protection is a necessary exception to that when there is ongoing vandalism because the cost / effort in reverting it outweighs the benefit of allowing anonymous editing; it is supposed to be applied for as short a time as possible. We can't predict the future but we know in the present the number of editors is going down and there a like a quarter million articles with {{unreferenced}} tags on them. It's my opinion that the way we treat IP editors is part of the problem; other editors feel that the way we allow socks to harass editors is a more significant problem. It's my position that every step made toward treating IPs exactly the same as autoconfirmed is good; every unnecessary step away from that is bad. Wikipedia asks editors to work for free; that that has worked so far does not mean it will work forever. I don't know if there is a tipping point or not, or how close we are to it. The Tipping Point (book) isn't as amazing as some fans think it is because it's of limited utility because tipping points can only be identified in the past, not the future. As wiki-philosophical debates go, this is a tough one, because the many supporters are entirely correct there are few pragmatic reasons any editor should be editing another user's talk page. Regardless of outcome, I'm actually surprised and pleased there are so many opposed. Consider this analogy -- what's more pleasant to live in, a residential neighborhood with open green lawns or a neighborhood with chain link fences and bars on the windows? I'm saying please don't put bars in the windows, not because I want someone to break your house, but because they're ugly. NE Ent 13:49, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
This comment spoils a key element of Life of Pi so I'd suggest not reading it if you haven't seen the film yet NE Ent 13:49, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
If you've seen Life of Pi (film) -- I'd rather Wikipedia have the tiger Richard Parker than the cook. NE Ent 13:49, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't agree with most part of it that this proposal, if passed, could harm the purpose of this wiki (even though some administrators are doing it already; I just can't help mentioning it). That analogy, for example, was not a very good one. Why would a random IP user consider my user page as something analogous their neighbourhood? I've never encountered the case when a new user did something constructive by editing another's user page; the best I ever saw them do was leaving messages on the user page (though I know there are a lot more experienced Wikipedians in this discussion; they're all free to prove me wrong here as long as they have diffs). Even from new users'/anon. users' point of view: why would an IP user (or a registered one with fewer than 10 edits and less than 4 days of experience), in fact, mind not being able to edit another user's user page; why would a new/anon. user feel bad about it when they'd most likely be interested in editing the mainspace articles (likely about their favourite topics, for instance)? And no, I don't think it would be a tipping point because protecting user pages on demand has never been a "rare" practice in the recent past (that spans over at least a few years). This proposal should, at its worst, be able to decide if the practice should be completely forbidden and that violating administrators should be taken seriously. smtchahaltalk 15:38, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Also, pages sometimes also get protected when there is no scope of improvement by the users restricted from editing. For example, Jimbo Wales (which redirects to Jimmy Wales) was fully-protected indefinitely in 2008 with the reason "no need to be edited". If that can happen, why can't user pages get semi-protected? Why is it unsafe to assume that IP/new users cannot improve user pages by any means (even though I'm not asking to get user pages protected by default)? smtchahaltalk 06:43, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Well, a lot of users would prefer their user pages protected before they get vandalised, right? smtchahaltalk 06:47, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment I support the general principle that users should generally have control over their own user pages, especially the non-talk pages. I would expect admins to protect user pages on request from the user, provided that there is no good reason not to.
Regarding admins protecting their own pages I would suggest that they should only do this in circumstances in which they would be prepared to protect any user's pages on request. In other words admins should apply the same protection principles to their own pages as they would to others'.Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:49, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per all the above it just makes sense.
    Hot Stop
     22:11, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Like the protection of your userpage for "Persistent vandalism" after one instance of vandalism makes sense? I would call that another needless protection--Jac16888 Talk 23:01, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
That is precisely the reason I posted this RfC for. This is done already, but the thing is that the policy doesn't allow it. Some admins follow it, while others don't. User:Materialscientist is an example of such an admin, but (s)he seems to be ignoring the messages I posted on their talk page. There are a lot of admins who still pre-emptively protect user pages upon request, but I'm surprised at the comparatively small number of those who actively participated in this discussion (though I'm not sure all of them are aware of this RfC). Perhaps some people are right about some admins not facing the situation because doing so could 'damage' their reputation as an administrator.
Yes, simply semi-protecting user space pages upon request would inarguably be the clearest policy, but I don't think it would be a good one at the same time. Like I mentioned above in my discussion with Jac16888, user space pages sometimes must not be protected from editing unless it's for other reasons (like vandalism, edit warring, socking, etc.), like in the case of a potential mainspace article currently in the userspace (some users don't prefer
WP:RFPP). And yes, that interface page does need to be updated; maybe it could vary according to the namespace of the protected article. smtchahaltalk
04:41, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
  • This is specifically about the "main user page". You "oppose" but think they could all be protected? Can you clarify whether you support protection for "main" user pages without a history of vandalism? :) ·
    ✉
     21:52, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Who is allowed to protect a page?

There seems to be varying opinions on when an admin is allowed to protect a page. If an article has received long term vandalism by IPs over many months, is an admin allowed to protect the page if they have edited it in the past? Only if the edits were not significant? Or never allowed to protect that page and must go through

talk · contribs · email
) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:58, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

You should never protect, at any level, anything in which you're a significant contributor. Always been that way, should stay that way. If in doubt, ask at RFPP or a neutral admin.PumpkinSky talk 22:15, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure that's the actual practice, though. I've certainly semi-protected pages on which I'm a significant contributor, in cases where I think the semi-protection is so clearly and unequivocally justified that any admin would reach the same conclusion.
WP:RFPP or contact an uninvolved admin to review the situation. MastCell Talk
00:32, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
I have to concur with MastCell - I do protect pages that I have edited when it is not controversial; if I didn't, I would quickly start flooding RFPP with all the
WP:HRT protections I do. However, when it could be controversial (say an editing dispute or an upcoming editing dispute) I always send it to RFPP for transparency. I always view admin actions performed in my subject area (roads) that way. --Rschen7754
06:38, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
To add onto that, sometimes it takes a subject expert to tell if someone is deliberately adding in factual errors to articles. --Rschen7754 06:46, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
One thing that I have seen floated is that any involved administrator only protect articles (as opposed to templates) for a short duration and subsequently refer the matter to RFPP to ask for a review and a longer-term protection. It may not strictly be required by policy, as MastCell points out, but it's one way to mostly avoid drama yet still maintain the integrity of our articles. NW (Talk) 12:25, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Well, and there I would disagree - I've had to protect several articles in the past (on the order of a dozen or more) because of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jonathan Yip. It's hard to get an "uninvolved" admin to care about such a situation, let alone be willing to protect that many articles. That's the reality of working as an editor in content areas. When there's a content war, that is obviously controversial and that is something that should be referred to RFPP. --Rschen7754 23:59, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Which is probably why we have a lot of templates that could use some work. NE Ent 23:43, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
It seems that you have issues with
WP:HRT overall, then. --Rschen7754
23:59, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Wasn't aware of its existence until reading your prior post, but yes, it is contrary to the whole anyone can edit meme (but I doubt I'd get any traction attempting to change it). NE Ent 00:51, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
I think the assertion "You should never protect, at any level, anything in which you're a significant contributor" is overly simplistic and doesn't reflect what
WP:INVOLVED says "it is still best practice in cases where an administrator may be seen to be involved to pass the matter to another administrator via the relevant noticeboards."

*Some bureaucratic obstacles are necessary to prevent abuse; unnecessary bureaucratic obstacles should be avoided.

Zad68

13:58, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

If obviously needs protecting, rfpp is bureaucracy -- if ya'll have to think about it, or someone complains, then don't / refer to RPP respectively. It's not conflict of interest / involved which hurts Wikipedia -- it's the perception that admins think themselves a higher caste rather than the "no big deal" meme espoused at
WP:ADMINISTRATOR. NE Ent
23:43, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
So how can we summary community opinion? "If an admin protects a page in which they are involved they should request a review after the fact at
talk · contribs · email
) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:38, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
That is my feeling, that you don't let WP:involved stop you from doing your job when quick action is needed, you just keep it in the open. By the same token, if it is blatantly obvious (poop vandalism, BLP hate speech, etc) then reporting it at WP:AN isn't really needed. It isn't about my opinion of how involved I am, it is how I estimate the most skeptical but reasonable person might view it. For me, that it is the measuring stick. If I've been reverting a bunch of IPs back and forth, then figure out they are really trolling, I might semi-protect, but I instantly go to AN to get a review, cover myself and put more eyes on the problem. It only takes one or two sentences: "I was reverting some IPs at an article I edit regularly: article. Determined they were all trolling, I semi-protected, dropping off here for review. Feel free to revert or modify if you think I erred." Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 10:36, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
  • note: I'm not ignoring this, but rather reading other thoughts and considering how I want to word my own thoughts. Hopefully I'll have time to post tonight, if not, then I'll try to get my ideas out by tomorrow. — Ched :  ?  14:04, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
  • OK - it appears that my schedule is rapidly filling up IRL, so here are my thoughts quickly while I can:
  1. I think this thread should be listed at RfC (and tagged as such).
  2. My thoughts are very similar to what Dennis says here.
  3. My take on policy is that we do not take administrative action on either an editor or an article which gives us an advantage. Even if it's only a "perceived" COI, I think our policies are pretty clear on this. Now, there is the notable exception (IAR style) that in an emergency we do what's needed to protect the project. So, during a holiday, weekend, middle of the night (which obviously varies depending on time zone) .. but any time there's perhaps a scarceness of administrators tending to an area - then I would not call foul on a 24 hour protection, pending a review by RFPP - (or AIV depending on the action taken). I also agree with Dennis in the use of AN and/or ANI in some cases outside the garden variety problem. It's one thing to have an interest in an article, and I don't even have a problem if there's a minor edit or two in the "fixed a typo", or "formatted the ref" style of admining if something needs protected or someone blocked. I don't think that's the type of thing that WP:INVOLVED is addressing. IF however, an admin. has actively been a content contributor to an article, then I think it has to be an absolute emergency with no help in sight for said admin. to take out his tools. And they should certainly never indef. such a thing. (protection or block). Our policies are pretty clear on this. Now I'm not a huge fan of instruction creep, so I don't see a need to establish any "24 hour rule" (or whatever) in the sense that it should be codified. Now if this is still open when I have a bit more time, I'll gladly expand or clarify. Thanks and best to all. — Ched :  ?  13:08, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't see a need for anything more than modifying WP:INVOLVED to say "If an admin takes action in an area where they are involved and there is any potential for contention in that action by other editors, the admin should voluntarily leave a note at
    WP:AN asking for review immediately after taking that action". I don't see a need to make it more complicated than that. I'm more concerned about making it a habit rather than a hard policy. This method allows us to act as a team, an admin team, and review each others actions any time there is a chance of any contention. It encourages disclosure and engagement. This means that if I'm doing something wrong, YOU can say "Dennis, you really shouldn't do that because of $x" the first time I do it, not after it goes to ANI on the 12th time I do it. If I'm afraid of dropping it off at WP:AN, then I probably shouldn't be doing it. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER
    14:13, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Dennis, definitely good practice. Would be happy to see this turned into a RfC.
talk · contribs · email
) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:44, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Protection_policy/Archive_15&oldid=1137433482"